Evidence map›Paper›PMID 43009597›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2026

3D models to capture and perturb tumour heterogeneity in vitro.

Aleksandra Fomina, Alison P McGuigan

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aleksandra FominaInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alison P McGuiganInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. alison.mcguigan@utoronto.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2803-0917

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tumour heterogeneity is a defining feature of cancer and a major obstacle to effective therapy as it drives metastasis, resistance and relapse. Experimental tumour models have largely exploited simplified, homogeneous systems that fail to capture the full biological and spatial diversity of real tumours. Recent advances in 3D models have considerably expanded our capacity to model different dimensions of tumour heterogeneity. These platforms also enable controlled perturbations of cancer-cell-intrinsic and microenvironmental features, including genetic programmes, therapy responses and transport, extracellular matrix composition and mechanics, oxygenation, perfusion, stromal and immune interactions, and tissue architecture. Such perturbations could reveal how different aspects of tumour heterogeneity shape disease progression and therapy response dynamics. However, how close we are to generating 3D models that not only recapitulate the dynamic, multiscale nature of human cancers but also enable systematic perturbations for mechanistic insights remains a key question. In this Review, we summarize the current landscape of 3D models and how effectively they capture tumour heterogeneity, what perturbations they enable, and how these capabilities can be matched to specific biological or therapeutic questions. We also discuss outstanding challenges in model fidelity, standardization, scalability, longitudinal analysis and clinical predictability.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.